




.Or - °"® 

0 

O 

O £ ^ \ 

c\ <0 

• ^ *0 Al* & 

O ! 'aV^ 

V V\ 




<r 


. 0*0' <$> <-V a?' * 

A y t • o A $ • • / </ 4 t t o 

%*♦ V^*‘* %, *♦ 

w /% -<^. *'o.»** o 4- 'V'^tK’ yv n* 

^ 0 N o t / 6 <£ (V f 0 N <* * jA # u # * * 

.'-^BV- ^ d?. t/W^y. +> -« .'j^ffl^. - 

> %TTV* f «o ^ ~ ‘ ^ /‘o7«° 4 i 

^ o^ **••> "**> w " v v ^o 



W : 



o ^ 


“' V mwS. . V- yv» . /x////;; w > v ,^JI\v^Cb * k v «• V,y//l/3ri 

^ *<>/♦• ••°\0’ * 
^ A y t • o ^ <7* 0 s • • / ^ ^ ^ ij 



: . 

'■♦ \>—,-<V 

o ** o * *^o Vir , i • « * 

% ^ vT *W2%L ir - 



& 'V .9 


>» ,-or ^ -» 

‘ * 6 ‘ .. V 

6 „ \s5$$W\, ° 



%y> /A 
V 


\ > *** 
° ^rv CV * 

• ® ^ V 

’o aV^> : 

♦ X* ° 

A 0 "<6 
-1 • * - <y 







o. ^..s* A 

A y . . 1 ' ' 

-. *b : 



# • 


_ Jp-A •.Sj^>.' A°«v „ >>° -v ■ 

^ ^ • o n o 0 ^ •• ^ ‘'©WO 

'MMmi °Ir^ • 

. A» JO//// *j S. C,^ 

^ ' * ' 






V <► '“"•»** A 0 ^" 

aP ,•''/•», ^ c o .«iL‘% 


o 

-i 


^o* "bv^ . 

K o„ *?W*t O o - , 

V *”"°’ ^ <■'" cf ,■■, % °"° v^ ,,.. ^ .0 

. ^ ,. v .!a»*. *j, a ,*>s^;-. ^ ^v;% tfe r 

VP_ 



o, *.»1‘ A? ^ 


•o V ^ t V 
JO ** I 




’b’ s, 

: 

. . 

4 ' O’ 

A^ , • 1 ' 8 * ^ 

. - J* \ <t ' 


; a^'V ” 

* ,.<5- v V ” 




A 

v i 

*- "" ' -- v o V 

<-zyy/n)j# * ^ " i * 

"' O N 0 ' ^) y ^ 

V V * y * C\ 

* 4? K& * 



J) ^ a? CV * 

* * » *» * A 0 * o « ° ° 4 $ ^ 

<0 *•••% V V *V°* c\ 



^ ** * 
: ; 

* ci °Y ** 

* ■Oa «<&■ ° 



'o . * * <o v v o. *svr*'' a 


t/> ^ 


o V 


.&’ ...... '%, < ”‘ o^ .-•. ^o '*** y 

% ° A t'jrtO&g. % , 0 J vT *‘ 

^bv* ■ A <y : 

%* '“ggwv o- --*» 

O A v o, *„.,•* * 

* ’ • C\ A y .» 

11 ^ 
Vi 





, Jp ^ » 

^ ^ 0 *** 

O. '■*“ W '- •’ A 0 ^ * o „ 0 ' ,•%' ' 1 

A ^ v % ,'V°- % 4> t v« 

‘ ' ' %/ .vflS&fc*. *- <* * 

4>** '- ? « ^ * 


?,* V •> •%‘WV A-' - 

* A <.'..»• ,6 V v 

*4r 9 l i e „ <P. ry c o« o * **© 

^iafK-V>« :’ “ ' 

io. 





0 N 0 




o » 



* 



. . 

* A <\ 'o» i* <(y 

Jy 9 1.•a * <$\ Qr o° No * 

~& . fc _ -r Vl_ Ci » 

' ~ """" '< r+ q x 

4 0 




# 

r- 


* o » 0 '" 

V N ,>••». 'c> .0* AVI'* 

- * /^v 0 -\/ 

: aX «W^^“ 

i o v/ » BXW * ^ -* 

^ A- <* 


< v < 


A vP j 
* <yP icv * 

« ,«/ V* -* 







o. S,1 4 ’ A 0 ^ ‘'ono 0 ^ ^ 

^ S**A. ^ \/ p * ° <>„ b. ^0 S S _ ^ 


'■^. /A <- 
«* <A * 

\ "V V 

o aV^. *o 



^ £> ♦ 

V^ v 





















3F& 


Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth 
Branch Connecticut Society 

of the 

Sons of the American Revolution 



Random Notes on 
Colonial Furniture 

By 

HENRY W. ERVING 

Publication No. 4 
1922 


















































Random Notes on 
Colonial Furniture 


A Paper read at a meeting of the 
Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth Branch , 
Connecticut Society of the Sons of the 
American Revolution , Hartford Club , 
October /£, 1922 . 


R y\ 

HENRY W. ERVING 

H 

Member Connecticut Historical Society , 
Member Walpole Society . 


1 ^ ^ 3 


1 







* 


c 


Gift 

ten $1222 


A Connecticut Chest 















































































N K &j<4q (o 


Random Notes on Colonial 
Furniture 


I have entitled this paper Random Notes 
on Colonial Furniture, for the reason that within 
recent years so much has been written on the 
broad subject of Colonial Furniture, so many 
books, some of them valuable and most of them 
informing to some degree, so that any one who 
cares may readily familiarize himself with the 
general history of household furniture and its 
various styles and periods;—but the minor and 
perhaps unessential, but none the less interest¬ 
ing, details of construction and domestic en¬ 
vironment have been neglected to a certain 
extent, and it is of these that I will, if you 
please, in a desultory and fragmentary manner 
confine myself, in the hope of possibly bringing 
to your attention a few facts that may not be 
altogether trite. 

It is the furniture and household utensils of 
New England that principally engages our at¬ 
tention and most interests us, although we may 
not entirely neglect other sections of the country, 
and I would like to emphasize the fact which I 
think has been somewhat overlooked, that the 


[3] 



furnishings of the early colonial homes were 
practically all of domestic construction. They 
were homemade; very simple were they gener¬ 
ally, as was the life and as were the requirements 
of the settlers themselves;—fashioned in a way 
along the lines and following the styles of the 
furniture of the period, of the land from which 
they emigrated, but with a certain distinctive 
quality that marked them one hundred per 
cent American. 

It was formerly characteristic of a piece of 
ancient furniture especially if at all important, 
that it must of necessity have been made in the 
old country, and on very many occasions I have 
been informed with pride regarding certain 
articles absolutely and undeniably native, that 
they had been “brought over”, or “brought out,” 
by certain of the owner's worthy forbears, oft- 
times with the exact dates and all attendant 
circumstances. 

I have a so called “Connecticut chest”, 
which came to me accompanied by a carefully 
inscribed label, narrating minutely its history, 
which was to the effect that it was brought by a 
revered ancestor of the former owner, to Lyme, 
Connecticut, from Plymouth, England, in 1660. 
The date was not far out of the way. Another 
specimen I wot of, whereon appears an elabo¬ 
rate silver plate, engraved with a full account of 
its English origin, the date of its importation 
and the various vicissitudes of its long and 
eventful life. The particular pieces here re- 


ferred to are built of materials not found abroad, 
and while upwards of sixty examples have been 
discovered in Connecticut alone, nothing similar 
appears in English collections or in English 
technical books. 

The furniture “brought over ,, in the May¬ 
flower has become proverbial. In that connec¬ 
tion I can but recall a cynical remark of our 
always emphatic, late ex-fire chief, who speaking 
sardonically in regard to the passengers rather 
than the freight of that historic vessel, declared 
that it must have had a profanely big steerage! 
But it really had not. Authorities do not alto¬ 
gether agree regarding the exact size of this 
vessel, but according to the best information 
that I have been able to obtain, the Mayflower 
was but 82 feet in length over all; 22 feet beam, 
with a depth of 14 feet, and of 120 tons dis¬ 
placement; and having on board 102 passen¬ 
gers and the crew. By comparison the Levia¬ 
than is 907 feet long, 100 feet beam, and has a 
displacement of 69,000 tons,—and as a troop 
ship during the war carried between 12,000 and 
13,000 people from France to New York in 
seven days. Hardly much opportunity for 
the Mayflower to bring a quantity of furniture 
to Plymouth, or indeed anything else save the 
crowded precious souls who were to have such 
a profound influence in the building of a nation. 

In Pilgrim Hall in Plymouth, are shown 
several important articles of household furniture, 
which are supposed to have been brought to our 


[5] 


shores on the Mayflower or the vessels immedi¬ 
ately following her. It is not impossible. But 
the wainscot chair of Governor Winslow there 
exhibited is indubitably of American white oak. 
And the wonderful oaken cradle, and the 
“Brewster chair” so called, hitherto regarded 
as unique, have each been surpassed by examples 
unearthed during the last few years, in certain 
towns of Eastern Massachusetts. Chairs of the 
so called “Brewster” and “Carver” type, by the 
way, are not seen in English collections. 

The curious wicker cradle there shown might 
indeed have been brought with the Pilgrims 
from Holland, as an absolute necessity for the 
expected little Oceanus Hopkins or Peregrine 
White,—although the voyage proved much 
longer than was anticipated,—for in old Colony 
days it was considered impossible to bring up a 
baby without a cradle. Apropos of infantile 
requirements of the time, I would mention that 
among our personal treasures are some baby 
corsets—about four inches long,—and my great 
grandmother is said to have remarked that she 
couldn't bear to handle a baby unless it were 
stayed . 

The very important fact to consider is that 
the early settlers of New England,—the Pil¬ 
grims, and a few years later the Puritans,— 
after providing for a shelter and sustenance, 
turned their attention to the making of homes, 
and in what seems to us an astonishingly short 
time, were producing articles of comfort as well 


[6] 


as those of necessity, and soon even attempted a 
certain ornamentation of their household fur¬ 
nishings. The low chest was one of the earliest 
articles of household use as well as the most 
essential, serving as it did as a repository for 
goods and a seat as well. 

The first houses of course were but shelters, 
and bare of everything but roof, walls and 
chimney, but the rude benches and tables of 
rough slabs with sticks driven into auger holes 
for legs, were very soon superseded by stools and 
forms, and even chairs of most creditable turn¬ 
ing, done on the foot lathe, but with much excel¬ 
lence of line. 

The early court registers still preserved, 
furnish many interesting facts regarding the 
primitive house furnishings, those of Massa¬ 
chusetts being perhaps the most voluminous and 
instructive, although in the catalogue of the 
personal effects of Governor Theophilus Eaton 
for instance, of New Haven Colony, made in 
1657, much information is to be found. 

The records of the Essex County Probate 
Court for the years 1636 and after, contain many 
inventories in which every little article in an 
estate is mentioned, be it important or otherwise. 
Given one of the houses of the period of which 
there are several in existence, and it is possible 
in imagination to reconstruct the home of an 
early settler, not only to repeople, but to re¬ 
furnish it. The “Fairbanks house” in Dedham, 



A chair of most creditable turning. 

[ 8 ] 





Massachusetts, supposed to have been built in 
1638, and the “Parson Capen house” in Tops- 
field, dated 1683 on the summer beam, and now 
restored with good judgment, are excellent 
examples of the first real houses succeeding the 
hovels and log huts. The latter, the minister’s 
hcfuse, was a little structure of but four rooms 
and a chimney, and one can readily fancy the 
household arrangements and the home life 
therein. 

In the Massachusetts records referred to 
there are mentioned as in estates of Salem and 
the neighboring towns between the years 1636 
and 1664, some two hundred chests alone, with 
about one hundred and fifty chairs, many 
benches, forms and stools, as well as cabinets, 
cupboards, desks, dressers, settles, tables, cradles, 
and beds. Among the chests named are wain¬ 
scot chests, oak chests, an occasional carved 
chest, and old pine chests. It is thought that 
the early mention of pine furniture referred to 
any article of soft wood. Whitewood was much 
used. It is highly probable that as time went 
on chests may have been brought to this country 
in the form of luggage,—as boxes containing 
goods. But if so, it is likely that they were 
boxes only or sea chests, which have long since 
been destroyed, for while the period mentioned 
is early for what we term the Colonial carved 
chest, in my experience I have never seen an 
oaken chest of early American usage that I could 
feel certain was of English origin. 


[9] 


Documentary evidence regarding the con¬ 
struction or the source of our early furniture is 
very meager. Correspondence was negligible, 
accounts scanty and transcient, and about the 
only memorandums preserved are in the form 
of wills and inventories. Illuminating facts 
are found in the will of Thomas Emerson of 
Ipswich, made in 1653, in which are mentioned 
the “great carved chest & the carved box, and 
a small carved chest”,—and particularly and 
important as indicating domestic construction, 
in the will of Thomas Wells of Ipswich, dated 
1666, wherein he gives “unto my son Thomas 
Wells * * * * the little chist, & table (he made) 
that stands in the Hall chamber, & my white 
boxe, and the chist planks to make him a chist 
on”. The testator also bequeaths to “Abigail 
my wife the best chest and the inlayed boxe with 
T:W upon the lidd”; also, generous soul, “and 
one halfe of the putter that was her own fathers”* 
His daughters also receive chests. “Also my will 
is, that every of these my Daughters, shall have 
each of them a bible & every of them a good 
chist”. 

As the furniture became more elaborate, its 
construction,—instead of every man being his 
own cabinet maker,—came into the hands of 
specialists, men who had the taste and ability to 
create pieces well made and of good lines; and 
chests, particularly those of certain especial 
types, apparently were made by comparatively 
few persons, a single family perhaps, insomuch 


that examples of these varieties exhibit a close 
family resemblance. Possibly the Thomas Wells, 
Jr. mentioned,—although at this time a student 
at college,—may have been a regular chest 
maker to some extent. 

Other evidence there is that our early carved 
and ornamented chests were produced here, by 
our own people, besides the distinctively local 
characteristics of the materials used. In 1645 
a furnace was erected at Saugus by Joseph 
Jenks, where bog iron ore was smelted, using 
charcoal instead of coke, and in a very short 
time this and other furnaces were producing 
considerable quantities of cast iron articles, even 
creditable hollow ware. Special privileges were 
conferred by the General Court upon Jenks and 
his associates, which later aroused the resent¬ 
ment of the settlers and resulted in their perse¬ 
cution. However, Jenks seems to have been a 
man of wonderful resource and ability, and he 
is reputed to have built the first wire drawing 
machine used in this country, and the first fire 
engine; to have invented the long scythe, and 
of especial interest, to have cut the dies from 
which were struck the pine tree coins by John 
Hull, the first mint master of the colonies. 

In Essex Institute in Salem, is an old fire- 
back cast at the Jenks furnace in 1660, for a 
fireplace in the home of John and Alice Picker¬ 
ing. These firebacks were very generally orna¬ 
mented with carvings in relief of biblical or 
allegorical figures, or armorial bearings. In this 


instance, apparently no carver was at hand to 
serve as model maker and the wooden model for 
the heavy casting was fashioned by a maker of 
chests. A little of the typical low relief chest 
carving shows in this fireback, but the prominent 
features consist of the drops or “split spindles” 
and bosses, identical in form and size with the 
ornaments used on the Massachusetts and 
Connecticut chests of the period. This model 
maker simply attached to the ground, certain 
of his chest turnings in an attractive pattern, 
and a wonderfully interesting and historic bit 
of home-making resulted. And this, by the way, 
dates that particular type of chest rather earlier 
than had heretofore been supposed. 

About 1638 the first meeting house in 
Marblehead was built on Burial Hill, and some 
ten years later eight pews of oak were placed in 
the center of the church. The end panels of 
two of these pews are preserved in the Colonel 
Lee Mansion, now the fitting home of the 
Marblehead Historical Society. But for the 
fact that they are known to be portions of a 
pew, they might well be fragments of an oaken 
chest. They were constructed by a chest maker, 
and the mouldings were worked out with his 
especial tools. 

The materials of an early New England 
chest are almost invariably white oak and 
yellow pine. The former was of selected wood, 
“rived” or split from the log in a manner called 
quartering, that is at right angles to the concen- 


trie growth rings, thereby obtaining the beauti¬ 
ful flecking of the grain. The riving knife, or 
“froe”, had a wide and very heavy blade set at 
a right angle to the wooden handle, somewhat 
like a modern hay knife, and slabs were struck 
from a block with a mallet. In a very old saw¬ 
mill I once saw a primitive machine for riving 
shingles, and these, split and shaved, lasted 
indefinitely. 

These chests were framed structures, that 
is put together with mortise and tenon, no glue 
was employed, and the few hand wrought nails 
used were in the drawers and sometimes for 
fastening on the back, the joints being held to¬ 
gether with pins which were usually square,— 
an instance where a square peg fitted a round 
hole to advantage. The holes in the mortise 
and tenon were not bored to exactly register, 
hence when the pin was driven into place, the 
joint was drawn together very tightly. This 
method was termed “draw bore”, and prevailed 
in the framing of houses and in the construction 
of much other furniture. 

And referring again to the primitive fur¬ 
naces, it were well to mention that until such 
time as hollow ware was attempted, and indeed 
for long after, most of the castings were produced 
in open moulds, that is no flask was used, but the 
molten metal was poured directly into the sand 
mould until it was full. This is very plainly 
indicated in the old firebacks, and many of the 
early cast andirons and stove plates. 


The records referred to show very plainly 
that as the years went on the settlers increased 
their home furnishings and their comforts 
rapidly. Cushions and draperies are frequently 
mentioned in the inventories. In 1653,—but 
twenty-five years after the Massachusetts Bay 
settlement,—John Buddolph came down to 
Salem from Andover with rye to exchange for 
supplies. Among the articles he took home with 
him were sugar, a bird whistle, and a doll. 
Fancy toys on sale in Salem only twenty-five 
years after Endicott's first emigration! I like 
to think of that doll and imagine its baby 
mother! 

Much of the building material, of course, 
was gotten out with the axe and shaped in the 
saw pit. However, mills came in very early. 
The first saw mill in Plymouth Colony was es¬ 
tablished in Scituate in 1640. In Mr. Joseph 
O. Goodwin's history of East Hartford, is men¬ 
tioned the purchase of land on the Hockanum 
in 1639, for the purpose of establishing a saw 
mill. While, as stated, the chests were usually 
constructed of rived oak planks, I have seen 
several where the drawer fronts were unques¬ 
tionably sawn out. The dwellings of the time 
made little pretensions to beauty, and in the 
matter of furniture, utility prevailed over ele¬ 
gance. But while the mechanical creations of 
the present day are amazing, the work of men's 
hands has deteriorated. It is true that certain 
of the old hand work productions can now 


[14] 


hardly be imitated. Workmen have neither 
the patience nor the training,—they are taught 
to run a machine, but the cunning of the hand 
has been lost. For years I have believed and 
insisted that many of the early and quaint 
brasses,—handles and pulls—were manufactured 
locally. Slight differences are perceptible be¬ 
tween many of the trimmings on English pieces, 
and those very similar on Colonial furniture of the 
same period. It is difficult now to have a fine 
old brass handle properly reproduced. I have 
had experienced brass founders tell me that 
certain old plates not much thicker than blotting 
paper were never cast, and to thus make some 
of the elaborately pierced brasses by that 
method was impossible, as the molten metal 
would not retain its fluidity long enough to fill 
the ramifications of the mould. Let me say that 
until the later embossed plates were used, all 
the old brass handles were cast, and some of the 
work done one hundred and fifty years or more 
ago is a reproach to our modern founders. Thin 
plates of finest texture are practically perfect 
from the moulds,—smooth and with no traces 
of a file. The very early plates are often referred 
to—and that too in many of the books—as 
chased or engraved. This is not the case; the 
ornamentation was done with stamps instead of 
a burin, as was also the later “engraved” work 
on Sheffield plate. Every brass tack used on 
18 th century furniture as trimming was cast in 
one piece, and the head subsequently smoothed 


[ 15 ] 


and polished, and to trim a sofa, for instance, a 
thousand tacks would be required. 

Mr. Alfred C. Prime, of Philadelphia, who 
recently compiled from the 18th century news¬ 
papers of that city the advertisements relating 
to furniture and its manufacture, discovered one 
of a brass worker of about 1750 who, on opening 
a branch establishment in Annapolis, offered to 
furnish brass firedogs, shovel and tongs heads, 
and furniture trimmings, all finished in the best 
manner. 

Most of the furniture of olden times was 
constructed of excellent material, and was of 
best workmanship. 

“In those elder days of art, 

Workmen wrought with greatest care 
Each unseen and hidden part, 

For the Gods see everywhere.” 

There was no factory work. In his little 
shop the cabinet maker, with pride in his chosen 
vocation, turned out a worthy product. No two 
pieces, even in sets, were exactly alike. The 
modern idea of interchangeability of parts was 
entirely undeveloped, and while of course this 
feature is of incalculable importance and value 
in modern mechanics, the hand-work displayed 
at this early period in the fitting and construc¬ 
tion of each article of furniture, independent of 
its mates, is altogether delightful. This charac¬ 
teristic is perhaps even more manifest in the 
metal manufactures of the day than in furniture. 


The early hand-made silver is so very much more 
pleasing than the finest modern product, that 
there can be no comparison. 

Eli Whitney, making muskets in New 
Haven—now Whitneyville—in 1809, is suppos¬ 
ed to have been the first to make mechanical 
parts interchangeable, although Mr. George 
Dudley Seymour thinks it possible that Daniel 
Burnap, the 18th century Connecticut clock 
maker, developed the principle and practiced 
it to some extent. 

All who are interested in antique furniture 
base their regard either upon the utility of the 
various pieces and their generally admirable 
construction and beauty of line, or upon the 
sentiment which is always connected with things 
ancient, and especially with articles intended for 
intimate household use. This sentiment regard¬ 
ing furniture must of necessity rest largely in the 
imagination, for unless one's treasures have a 
reliable family history, it is ordinarily difficult 
to obtain definite record regarding them, and 
to rehabilitate the furniture of bygone years, one 
must depend largely upon fancy. But he best 
enjoys his valued pieces who can see reflected 
in his mirrors the faces of former possessors, 
and can recreate the people of olden time sitting 
in his chairs, at his desks, and before his and¬ 
irons. 

Especially is this true as it relates to the 
productions of early New England. The sturdy 
rugged character of the Pilgrim and the Puritan 


is reflected in the oaken chests and the heavy 
chairs and tables, relieved a bit later by the 
elegance of the carved beech and walnut. This 
type of furniture too typifies in a way the dis¬ 
tinctive frugal characteristics of our forbears, 
for which by the way, all who love old furniture 
cannot be sufficiently grateful. It is because of 
this New ^England thrift, that we are now able 
to find, and occasionally possess, many treasures. 
In the early days of New England nothing was 
thrown away, and little wantonly destroyed. 
When an article of household furnishing had 
served its day and generation, it was set aside, 
removed to the attic or barn, but seldom de¬ 
molished. 

For a couple of centuries if one owned a 
farm, he derived therefrom all the necessities of 
life and many of the luxuries. Lumber for his 
buildings, fine wood for his furniture, his own 
meat, grain, wool and flax, and even silk. I now 
have a bit of fringe and a pair of stockings of 
silk, made by silk worms on my grandfather’s 
farm, and wound, and spun on a flax wheel by my 
grandmother. It was the one period of personal 
independence in our history. This characteristic 
of economy did not so prevail in the South. 
Wills and inventories would indicate that at 
one time many pieces of oaken furniture were in 
use in that locality, but examples are now rarely 
or never met with. 

The character of the Southern furniture 
differed in many respects from that of New 



The elegance of carved walnut. 

[19] 









England. The mechanical and inventive skill 
was not so ever present in that section, and much 
of the furniture was imported. The English oak 
was much darker than ours, and the chests and 
cupboards made abroad were frequently orna¬ 
mented with choice woods like ebony and rose¬ 
wood, which the northern workman endeavored 
to imitate by using maple stained black and red 
cedar. In the South there was more wealth and 
greater extravagance. Thus when a bride came 
to a home it must be refurnished,—when a 
planter imported new furniture, having no 
thrifty garret, the older pieces were often rele¬ 
gated to the negro cabins, where they were 
generally soon destroyed. Yet within recent 
years many fine specimens of the later periods 
have been discovered and rescued from other¬ 
wise squalid abodes in the South, things that 
had once graced the halls and chambers of 
mansions, but had been superseded by articles 
of later style and fashion. So in many sections 
of the South where good furniture is occasion¬ 
ally found, it is more apt to be of the Hepple- 
white or Sheraton order, or the later Empire 
type, rather than of the Chippendale School, 
and rarely are the earlier examples seen. On 
the contrary some of the most interesting speci¬ 
mens of Colonial furniture have been discovered 
under the eaves of some old New England home¬ 
stead where they had lain unheeded for genera¬ 
tions. It cost nothing to retain them so why 
throw them away. 


[ 20 ] 


I have myself seen an oaken chest in an 
attic, which was so large, that in some time^ 
altering the house the room was actually built 
around it, insomuch that the piece could never 
be removed without taking it apart. Much has 
been written in furniture books concerning the 
earliest of tables known, and designated as 
“table boards”. These have been frequently 
mentioned in inventories, and some of the finer 
and more ornate examples are known abroad, 
but the first Colonial specimen seen by collec¬ 
tors or known to writers, was discovered about 
twenty years ago by that intelligent and enthusi¬ 
astic collector the late H. Eugene Bolles, in the 
garret of a very old house in the town of Essex, 
Massachusetts, in which the stairway had been 
so changed that the great table could not be 
taken out, and thus it had long remained in 
safety and been forgotten. This table is now in 
the Metropolitan Museum. More recently an¬ 
other of these remarkable pieces has come to 
light, and was shown in the former collection of 
Dr. Wallace Nutting. These tables were twelve 
to fourteen feet in length, and about two feet 
wide, and were supported on two or three well 
designed trestles of oak, shaped like a letter H 
turned sideways,—a heavy post with chamfered 
corners and a cross piece top and bottom. These 
were tied together with a flat string piece 
through the center of each, keyed in place by 
pins at the sides of the posts. The board was 
reversible, both sides showing much evidence of 


use. Rockers on chairs were in use much earlier 
than was formerly supposed, and the genesis of 
the American rocking chair is probably to be 
found in the trestle feet of tables and an occa¬ 
sional chest. They were undoubtedly first used 
on chairs to give them stability and perhaps 
that they might be the more easily moved 
across the rough board floor, often sanded. 
While rockers found on very old chairs are often 
later additions, many ancient specimens are 
seen with the “rockers” nearly or quite flat on 
the bottoms, and projecting but two or three 
inches beyond the legs. Afterwards they were 
made longer and curved, and the chair became 
an auxiliary to the cradle. 

Concerning the early Colonial bedsteads 
little is known. Probably in most cases they 
were rude box affairs very simply constructed, 
to hold the bed furnishings, and hardly to be 
considered as furniture. There must have been 
instances of well made pieces but they seem to 
have all disappeared. In an old attic I was once 
shown a fragment of what was once a bedstead. 
It was of oak, and the construction was similar 
to that of the oaken chests of the 17th century. 
As stated, several Pilgrim cradles have been 
preserved but apparently no bedsteads are 
known. Later the slender turned high post bed¬ 
stead became common. I have heard of one 
such, found in Connecticut many years ago, 
having very slight round posts which were orna¬ 
mented with an entwining vine in relief. This 


pattern elaborated was followed later by Chip¬ 
pendale and others. The press bed, the pre- 
curser of the folding bed, made to fold up into a 
wall press, while quite old is not of the earliest 
type, and is frequently seen. 

One reason why the rails of old bedsteads 
were so high, was that the children’s bed—the 
“trundle bed”—might be rolled under it out of 
the way during the day. Another arrangement 
for the little ones was a railing similar to a small 
ladder, which fastened edgewise to the bed rail, 
served as a balustrade that the babies might not 
roll out of the dangerously high bed. The rope 
lacing or the stretched canvas formed the primi¬ 
tive spring mattress. 

It has been shown that the colonists made 
rapid progress in home-making. Comfort suc¬ 
ceeded safety, and as they gained affluence, 
they demanded elegance, and during the next 
century, (the 18th) particularly the latter half, 
importations increased, but much beautiful 
furniture was made in this country. Some was 
fashioned after the imported pieces, our cabinet 
makers, however, often adapting rather than 
slavishly imitating patterns, and indeed frequent¬ 
ly improving on the English originals. Thus 
there are no English chests of drawers or dressing 
tables, to compare in elegance or beauty with 
the Philadelphia “high boys” or “low boys”, 
and excepting certain high grade Chippendale 
examples, there are few scrutoirs or bureaus of 
English origin as fine and dignified as the 


[23] 


“block front” and “serpentine” pieces made in 
New England. 

The finest furniture made, and to be seen 
in this country, was in and about Philadelphia, 
although in New England were makers whose 
output while lacking the ornamentation and 
elegance of the Pennsylvania pieces, had a grace 
and character of its own difficult to excel. It 
may be said that the work of John Goddard, of 
Newport, has since hardly been equalled. Eli- 
phalet Chapin of South Windsor was a local 
cabinet maker of good taste and execution. His 
product seemed to have an individual style, and 
numerous examples are known which by their 
similarity of lines, justify us in attributing them 
to this Connecticut furniture maker. 

Some years later, early in the 19th century, 
another of the name—Deacon Aaron Chapin,— 
removed to Hartford from Chicopee, and with 
his son for nearly forty years, made furniture in 
Hartford, maintaining an enviable reputation 
for honesty and thoroughness. Rev. Dr. Thomas 
Robbins, the first librarian of the Connecticut 
Historical Society records in his diary on March 
2nd, 1807, “got a very fine cherry case at Hart¬ 
ford which Mr. Chapin had made for me. Paid 
for it forty-four Dollars” 

Previous to the Revolution, Philadelphia 
was the center of wealth and luxury, and had 
its aristocracy. It was greater in extent than 
New York or Boston. As late as 1765, New 
York was hardly more than a Dutch trading 


post, and Boston while cultured then as always, 
was a small city of rather a prim and Puritanic 
character, certainly not a town where luxury 
and extravagance prevailed. There were men 
of wealth among the early settlers of Philadel¬ 
phia, and to reinforce these came out younger 
members of distinguished families, who with the 
opportunities afforded in the new land, were in 
due time able to emulate the surroundings of 
elegance and refinement to which they were 
formerly accustomed. 

During this period the Philadelphians im¬ 
ported beautiful and expensive furniture as well 
as created it. During recent years some of the 
choicest examples of Chippendale's work have 
come to light in their city. And although at the 
beginning of the Revolution Philadelphia was 
the capital of the infant republic, and later 
sheltered the royal troops as well as those of the 
Continental army, there was among its citizens 
such an element of tories and pacifists as well as 
patriots, that the city as a whole did not suffer 
from war's devastation, and little of the now 
priceless contents of homes was destroyed. 

While the lover of old furniture may regret 
and deplore the present high and apparently 
advancing values placed upon fine and interest¬ 
ing examples, it is undoubtedly true that the 
extravagant prices of late years have drawn from 
their retirement many beautiful and remarkable 
specimens which were undreamed of by the 
early collectors and writers. 


Less than twenty years ago a perspicacious 
collector of New York, bought in London at an 
exorbitant figure, a pair of wonderful chairs, 
and the advertisement and notoriety of this 
sale—a mad American abroad with a check 
book,—brought out from different hiding places 
in England and France, the other ten hitherto 
unknown, of what is probably the finest set of 
Chippendale chairs in existence. A friend of 
mine was in England at the time, and later wrote 
to me of this occurrence, and sent me a small 
photograph of one of these chairs. They belong¬ 
ed to two old gentlewomen in Yorkshire, then in 
straightened circumstances. A friend persuaded 
them to put the pieces on sale at Christy's where 
they hoped they might receive for them as much 
as sixty pounds. When announcement was 
made by telegram that their two old chairs had 
been sold for one thousand pounds they were 
nearly overcome. 

The walnut wood was much used in the 
manufacture of fine furniture even in the latter 
17th century, and that used then and later by 
our cabinet makers appears to differ somewhat 
from the modern black walnut of the West, both 
in color and texture. Indeed, it was termed 
“red walnut". A piece of this old walnut of 
good grain, with color softened by many applica¬ 
tions of varnish, is often difficult to distinguish 
from mahogany,—but the latter, of all woods, is 
the finest material for cabinet work. It has all 
the requirements, strength, hardness, color and 


[26] 
















One of a pair of wonderful chairs 

[ 27 ] 





grain. Nothing can be finer than a good bit 
of “crotch grain” mahogany mellowed by age. 
The beautiful veneers were sawn from such por¬ 
tions of the log,—where a large branch joined 
the trunk of the tree,—producing the curly and 
diversified grain so much admired. 

Do you remember how, while waiting to be 
served in Gray's Inn Coffee House, David Cop- 
perfield brooding at his table, saw himself “re¬ 
flected in unruffled depths of old mahogany”? 
Never was a better description of beautiful old 
wood. Ancient crotch grain mahogany in a way 
resembles malachite, in that one can apparently 
see into it, far below the surface. 

I feel that no real furniture has been made 
for a hundred years. The “Empire style” so 
called, was the last. The decadence then began. 
The design and style of much of the Empire 
furniture was poor, but the wood employed was 
generally fine,—much of it was beautiful—and 
the workmanship itself excellent. Our “Ameri¬ 
can Empire” seemed to be a c~oss between the 
real Empire styles of France and the debased 
patterns of the late Sheraton period. Yet some 
of the latter examples while almost grotesque 
in form, show most beautiful work in the way 
of ornamentation and delicate carving. 

The brasses of some of the Empire pieces 
were oftentimes fine and even artistic. The 
drawer pulls of these were most generally of 
embossed patterns,—as were those of Hepple- 
white and Sheraton furniture—formed of sheet 


[28] 


brass struck up in steel dies, but the elaborate 
mounts were cast, and on some of the finer im¬ 
ported articles were commonly tooled after be¬ 
ing taken from the moulds, and frequently 
finished in “fire gilt”. In this process the surface 
of the article was covered with gold nearly pure, 
mixed in an amalgam, and with a blow pipe the 
mercury was later burned off and dissipated, the 
gold remaining in a lustrous finish which could 
be burnished if desired. 

These fire gilt and ormolu ornaments were 
often very beautiful. I have in mind a little 
panel taken from a choice piece of French furni¬ 
ture, representing two little cupids carrying a 
third in a hammock of flowers, the whole as fine 
as a cameo, equaling in grace and beauty any old 
Wedgwood. 

Similarly the old rolled plate, “Sheffield 
plate” is hardly equalled by modern work. The 
principal interest perhaps in Sheffield plate con¬ 
sists in the cunning silversmithing. It was dis¬ 
covered by accident in 1742 that a thin plate of 
silver “sweat” or soldered to a thicker plate of 
copper, could be rolled as thin as desired, each 
metal retaining its proportionate thickness. This 
silver coated sheet was then fashioned into all 
manner of utensils, but the joints of solder must 
not show, there being no method of covering 
them subsequently. In candlesticks for instance, 
all the work must be done from the inside, 
hence it becomes very difficult to properly repair 
a piece of old Sheffield. Directly, of course. 


[29] 


after the introduction of the electro process a 
hundred years later, the fine old rolled plate 
was superseded. 

One of the very worst features of modern 
furniture is the labor saving method of doweling 
the joints, instead of the more difficult, and pains¬ 
taking process of mortise and tenon. By the 
latter mode, even when shrunken and loose, the 
furniture was still strong. It was a common, even 
a general practice in the construction of turned 
chairs to have the rungs absolutely dry, and the 
legs of wood not so well seasoned. When the 
rungs with the ends turned a shade larger than 
at the shoulder, were forced into the holes in the 
legs, after the latter had thoroughly shrunk, the 
joint was almost as firm as though welded. Of 
course the early furniture was not constructed 
to meet the heat requirements of our modern 
houses with the super dry atmosphere. So it is 
well that when a valuable piece must be restored, 
that the work should be done in the midst of 
artificial heat, in order that it may then shrink 
all that it will. And with an article fresh from 
an attic, however dry, it is prudent to remove 
at once any transverse cleats that may be on a 
wide board—as the top of a sideboard for ex¬ 
ample—as all wood shrinks edgewise and flat¬ 
wise only, and the cleats by remaining station¬ 
ary will inevitably cause the board to warp or 
split. 

In the Colonial houses with their open fires 
and wide ventilating fire places, no such strain 


was put upon the cabinet work of the time. In 
pieces where large turnings prevail, like pillar 
tables for instance, possible modernness may 
sometimes be detected by carefully taking the 
diameters with calipers,—very old turnings 
should never be round, not having shrunk even¬ 
ly. Certain other features in modern reproduc¬ 
tions may not be detected with equal certainty, 
however. Some forgeries are done so skilfully 
as to challenge the best judgment of the expert. 
The oft suggested method of simulating worm- 
holes, by firing bird shot into old wood of course 
is nonsense, but the clever forger is an adept in 
expedients. I remember once examining an 
apparently fine old Chippendale chair in com¬ 
pany with the late Patrick Stevens. I am glad 
to recall that my first impression of the piece 
was unfavorable, but persistent scrutiny almost 
swerved one’s judgment, so beautifully was the 
chair constructed, so admirably were the marks 
of wear made to appear. The weight of the 
article was against it, it being much too light, 
but Mr. Stevens called my attention to the 
mars and bruises on the piece—and they were 
many,—as being all made by one instrument, 
rather than by duster, or broom or children’s 
feet, and as the general result of long continued 
use. I thought this analysis very clever. 

While much of our fine old furniture is 
related directly or indirectly to that of the great 
masters of the last half of the 18th century, we 
must still bear in mind that a great deal of high 


quality and beautiful design was constructed in 
England, and to some extent copied by our own 
cabinet makers, long before the time of Chippen¬ 
dale. We do not know to whom to ascribe these 
fine pieces, there were artists, however, in those 
days. Several unimportant books of designs 
were published before Chippendale's, but these 
styles took the names of the reigning sovereigns 
rather than those of the makers. The late 
Charles L. Pendleton liked to attribute his 
famous “mirror back" chairs to Grinling Gib¬ 
bons, who lived until 1721, and there is some 
evidence to support his contention. In the late 
Richard Canfield's collection was a marvelous 
mirror frame, so fine and wonderful in the 
execution of its carving, that it would seem as 
if bronze were the only material from which it 
could be produced. This indeed might possibly 
be the handiwork of Gibbons. But Chippendale 
seems to have been the first well known cabinet 
maker whose designs particularly impressed, and 
whose work was directly followed by our local 
workmen. While in a sense he did not originate, 
he was a master in that he adapted and improved 
the best in all styles, into a nearly perfect style 
of his own. His first book of designs appeared in 
1754, and the last edition in 1762, and the con¬ 
summation of his art is probably expressed in 
these volumes. He excelled as a chair maker, 
and certainly the grace and elegance of his pro¬ 
ductions has never since been approached. In 
his furniture the first requirement seemed to be 


[ 32 ] 


This might be the handiwork of Gibbons. 

I 33 ] 


t 


> 







excellence of construction, then symmetry of 
line, followed by decoration expressed in carv¬ 
ing, for Chippendale used inlay rarely, and ap¬ 
parently only in his later work. He was an 
artist, and among his friends and patrons were 
Hogarth, Reynolds and Chambers. He un¬ 
doubtedly made many pieces with claw and ball 
feet, but in his books of designs none such are 
shown, and no sideboards whatsoever. He de¬ 
lighted in curves and generous carving, and yet 
in his inimitable way he adapted the stiff designs 
and straight lines of Chinese furniture into a 
style of his own that was most attractive. 
“Chinese taste” which prevailed in England 
during the latter half of the 18th century, intro¬ 
duced and made popular by Sir. William Cham¬ 
bers, constrained the master to meet the demands 
of fashion in his furniture, and the beautiful 
gothic back chairs, and charming tables with 
pierced and fretted legs, as well as many wonder¬ 
ful mirrors, were the results. The Colonial 
chairs with pierced splats and straight legs 
either square or moulded, which we designate 
as Chippendale, are the direct descendents of 
the beautiful prototype ornamented with deli¬ 
cate carvings and frets. 

Following Chippendale came Hepplewhite 
and later Sheraton. Hepplewhite’s work was 
light and often very graceful, and he relied 
largely upon inlay for ornamentation, in which 
he excelled, and some of the work of his school 
embellished with insets of light and shaded 


woods, is very pleasing. Indeed the finest 
specimens of his work,—which are seldom found 
in this country—wherein the most delicate carv¬ 
ing is used in conjunction with choice inlaying, 
are perhaps the most beautiful things we can 
see in 18th century furniture. The construction 
of his chairs in particular, however, was weak 
and poor, and one wonders sometimes how so 
many specimens have been preserved to our day 
intact. 

Sheraton’s best work was done towards the 
close of the century, and some of his carved or¬ 
namentation was of a very high order. He was 
probably a designer only, as were the Brothers 
Adam. He loved to use wood of beautiful grain 
in the construction of his furniture, and would 
frequently in a painstaking way inlay small 
panels of fine crotch mahogany on surfaces of 
the same wood of plain grain, there being no 
contrast in color. And another feature of his 
work was the profuse adornment of the legs, 
corners and edges of his pieces with reeding, or 
beading. One must differentiate between reed¬ 
ing and fluting, although many of the books do 
not. Split a quill lengthwise, and the convex 
surface will indicate reeding, while the concave 
side will represent the flutes. Fluting was used 
in ornamenting the Colonial work more freely 
than reeding. The last of Sheraton’s work show¬ 
ed deterioration, and his later styles which con¬ 
tained many Empire features were very bad in 
design. 


[ 35 ] 


Of course all the great makers had their 
imitators and contemporaries. Several of the 
latter published books of designs and acquired 
considerable distinction, but the greater part of 
the furniture of the last half of the 18th century- 
takes the name and follows more or less, the 
patterns of one of the three masters mentioned. 
Ince and Mayhew, Manwaring, Shearer and 
others, as well as the Brothers Adam, produced 
furniture books, but 

Thomas Chippendale's “The Gentleman 
and Cabinet Maker's Director" 1754, 

George Hepplewhite's “The Cabinet Maker 
and Upholsterer's Guide" 1788, 

and 

Thomas Sheraton's “The Cabinet Maker 
and Upholsterer's Drawing Book" 1791, 
commonly spoken of as “the Director", “the 
Guide" and “the Drawing Book", are the 
three great volumes which illustrate the highest 
types of 18th century furniture. 

Probably all of the very old looking glasses 
were made abroad, and beveled edge plate was 
used at an early date. Empire mirrors, however, 
and even earlier patterns with the cut edge orna¬ 
ments, were produced in this country freely. 
Frequently a paper label was glued on the back, 
indicating the name and abode of the maker. 
Furniture was occasionally signed, but the 
paper labels commonly used were not perma¬ 
nent, and are seldom found. 


[ 36 ] 


The fact that the ornate and beautiful 
highboys and lowboys mentioned were made 
in Philadelphia was for a long time disputed. 
They were styled “Southern highboys” by many 
who insisted that they had their origin in that 
part of the country, when in point of fact little 
furniture comparatively, was produced in the 
South, although cabinet makers there were in 
Baltimore, Annapolis and Charleston. I was 
particularly anxious to prove the Philadelphia 
contention, and continually sought evidence and 
followed up clues. Some ten years ago a fellow 
collector of Baltimore wrote me that he had just 
purchased a fine lowboy which would interest 
me. It did indeed, for on the bottom of the 
“towel drawer” was pasted the label of the 
maker. 

All Sorts of Chairs and 
Joiners Work 
Made and Sold by 
William Savery 
At the Sign of the 
Chair, a little be¬ 
low the Market, in 
Second Street. 

Philadelphia. 


I secured excellent photographs of both 
label and dressing table which later appeared in 
Mr. Lockwood’s “Colonial Furniture in Ameri¬ 
ca”—second edition—and the piece itself was 
subsequently secured by Mr. Lockwood for the 
Society of the Colonial Dames of New York, and 


is now deposited in the VanCortlandt Manor 
House. In 1918, when the Metropolitan Muse¬ 
um acquired from Mr. George S. Palmer his 
wonderful examples of American cabinet work, 
there appeared in the Museum Bulletin a very 
interesting and logical article wherein the re¬ 
cently discovered William Savery was accredited 
with a large proportion of the fine Philadelphia 
cabinet work of the latter 18th Century, which 
perhaps was a little fanciful. 

Generally speaking, I think one is prone to 
date one's pieces too early rather than too late, 
for all the various styles were manufactured for 
considerable periods, and if certain particular 
articles were popular, they continued to be made 
after other fashions were introduced. Freak 
pieces appear occasionally which do not with 
any certainty denote the date which some of 
their features might seem to indicate. Let me 
say that furniture is not necessarily to be desired 
because it is old or rare,—yet extreme rarity 
makes many things valuable which might other¬ 
wise be commonplace, and age often brings 
beauty, always respect. Divers articles of 
ancient furniture are inconvenient and uncom¬ 
fortable, when measured by the standards of 
today. The andirons and crane, the hob grate 
or the Franklin stove, cannot compete or com¬ 
pare with the gas range or the steam furnace, 
and we rarely find an old fashioned chair easy to 
sit in. Our ancestors seemed to prefer straight 
backs to their chairs. Probably like Mrs. Wilfer, 


[38] 


they found it impossible to loll. But of most of 
the old time furnishings, we may say that they 
are at least respectable. All the examples are 
quaint, and many beautiful, and as representing 
the early taste and industry of our forbears, our 
colonial furniture is most desirable, and worthy 
of preservation. 


















































































































t 


4 
















































4 


H- 5 








































































? 'o * A 

c 0 * 0 * 

o s* »-555^^ "PL 
. ^ ^ O *V$S*^ * r$ 



V 9 a 


* ’^b V^ O 0 " 0 -* ^ 

o ^ . 

v o^ : 


• *° %. * 

■° V‘^*' ^,.. ^ * 

5i ♦ 



>° i- 0 ^ • 

♦ 0 ^iA * 

o N 0 ° .0 <5> * 0 I 1 * . 

C> ,<y <> V 

^ v£ .Sv v £2 5i • 


■ . ^lSiif.° ^ %■ 

F <. ^TT»' <6 V "o 

A.'' A N O L I 0 

» 



‘ ** • 



© 

C* ^ • 

* 4? <P\ O 

„ _ _ _ ^ <L V ^ • 

*<$> (0^ „«.»»^ *^b 

* V . v *&(U/%5C\ <■ 

• - t ° ? •*ip: 

<J> f.0 *.-**--.*• «. 

V$ *°«° A° <?> "’ 

v ^ *o *<* 0 * *> v »!*’% o 




^'V 

<> ^vr.*'^ ^ 

^ f o* t . l, *» 

N V *5$OOAtV^* S”\ ^ * 











V.0 rt > 


- 0 » ^ 

o .0 T ■> 

V A* . 


° 0- ^ *♦.,! 


w 




JiS 



%/ • 


^ C\ «■ 

A* * 

^ ,<£ ♦ 

J>v * 


\Vv* - ° sS'f'n a>«* 

a^ ^ *wlI13* 4? ^ oVj^AP * AV 

"<? J, <tA <4 • ^2# * A V v'j, ». r 

$> o 0 " O ^ %S> A . t ' * * *Z>_ <& V 0 0 I* o ^ 

• _ ♦* T -• 0 .^/J^r. ■» l"T> * 

-^o« :&%£?-- ■’ov* :^2pr*&'. ^-o* 



4 O* *. 



vsaiy; 4°^ - 

* —V V 3 ** / V^V V* 

A 5/ s 5 ^'* *c* «<y **•«>.* V O, 

■ U 4* V^Sffe'* ^ ^ *♦ *' ' 

o V*'V ° '^■WIliiSSL r -rw C.' • cSS\\^W/y2,° />/V o 


o 

A ^ ‘ 

,6^ \D. -°. , 





«* „* 

* a 

A c ono <r 

<A **L c 

*o& »»A’. *^-o* 


!*."*• Vo 0 .0' 

^ <4? 

V * 






j"^ • c 

- ’’o V* 

0 >° ■%. V? 


> & ^4 



*> V * * V'* C\ ,0 v * I* °* 

** » y§fer . \. / .’ 



• **V. 


♦ ^ 


<£ V 

* 4? »jfV o 

/> <* */7rt» J .o^ ^ '"'••** a <\ 

^ ^ f CT C-^% ^°0 ^ 

vr ,r y r xi ^ 00?ni///*2— ^ x 4 ^s^vA * *7^ 

”^0* 






o M O 



O^ - 

^ •'->’ J>' 

<\ t S • • r O 

^ . - V ^ A^' 

’ ^ ^ » 

° Vv ^ 

o *wW* A^'^V 

G^ ^ 'o..- A <^ ^Tr* 4 <G V ^ '< 

t ' • *^0 4 V’ G O « o <{> fvV . t » • ^ < v , 

5 * % *dnL\ ° ^ . c t'jfflfag* °^ ^ «v 

- -»b^ ,°<^®“. ^o 4 ok :% 

: tp-r^ r ^^m§' 4-°^ jP-n#. \% 

>+ '/ V^\/ v*^‘ / \ ** 

‘- 'Xo^ •\4 ^|m^ <> « f^SQS,": ^ 

» *V*^ •*° <• *b^ ° wvt%«vvv * *v v ^ A ■* 

k V ^ ^ .,‘U7il&\V'* aV W • 





, * 

- A 

A V o NO 

O ^ C' , 

*N s <Sax\Vii < X j ' >. ^ 

■^b v^ tt-4 



^ % <L> 

% ^ ,o v .,- 


4 o* ,.i 


• >, 0 \~<^m^.- .■?•’ 

0 *■ <jS <TV 

M»’ a0 ; V ••»'* °^ 

> <y ^ < • o, ^ -v/ sjV^* <?, 

\/ ^ .* 






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































